[Draft] Convention on Food Security

[Araraukar]

"The purpose of this resolution is to help low-income food deficit nations implement the polices suggested in clause 1-3.

Considering what Food Welfare Act already does, I'm increasingly failing to see why further resources should be thrown at the nations that are already smooching off of the better-doing ones.

ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;

Looks to me like that already does what you want this proposal to do. Or, at the very least, that if a nation has failed to do the above, its current bad situation is entirely its own fault, as WA already instructed it to do otherwise. Additionally, the committee created in FWA already "[sends] scientists to nations needing assistance in the creation of beneficial farming practices". (OOC: I'm starting to think it's significant duplication.)

The World Assembly has a long history of spending money to improve global health - this resolution builds off of that longstanding commitment.

OOC: I have a memory failure, can you point out the resolutions that use other nations' resources to improve a "not-well-off nation's" health situation? Not including the ones with humanitarian aid in a disaster, as those are, hopefully, another kettle-o-fish entirely.

"So frankly, I do not think it is unfair that wealthier nations need to contribute resources towards combating global hunger."

Aside from the fact that the majority of WA nations not residing on the same planet and that a famine is hardly global if it's just one or two nations, didn't you say...

"Although do not conflate giving technology freely with giving tools and equipment freely."

Yet what you argue now is that material help should indeed be given for free, if the nation in question is unable to pay for it. That the help comes from the WA is irrelevant, as it ultimately is paid for (OOC: since WAGF tax "donations" probably aren't going to be more than the nation can afford) all the nations, which includes the ones - which are in the majority, I hope - that haven't been stupid enough to forego food scarcity prevention ages ago. Throwing money/equipment at nations that are so bad at managing themselves tends to be a non-ending drain. (OOC: At least in real life it is.)

[Sciongrad]

"The purpose of this resolution is to help low-income food deficit nations implement the polices suggested in clause 1-3.

Considering what Food Welfare Act already does, I'm increasingly failing to see why further resources should be thrown at the nations that are already smooching off of the better-doing ones.

"Perhaps you can clarify what it is you think GAR#52 does, because it does not by any means cover most of what this resolution seeks to address. It is related in that it deals with food security, but that is it."

ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;

Looks to me like that already does what you want this proposal to do. Or, at the very least, that if a nation has failed to do the above, its current bad situation is entirely its own fault, as WA already instructed it to do otherwise. Additionally, the committee created in FWA already "[sends] scientists to nations needing assistance in the creation of beneficial farming practices". (OOC: I'm starting to think it's significant duplication.)

"Ummm, that is a single nonbinding clause that addresses only a single subclause of this resolution."

OOC: If you're going to make a case for duplication, you're going to need to demonstrate that this resolution is significantly covered by GAR#52. A single, nonbinding clause which deals with a single subsection of this resolution does not constitute "significant duplication.

OOC: I have a memory failure, can you point out the resolutions that use other nations' resources to improve a "not-well-off nation's" health situation? Not including the ones with humanitarian aid in a disaster, as those are, hopefully, another kettle-o-fish entirely.

OOC: Sure thing.

A Health Research & Development Division is hereby created within the WHA, with the aim to research and develop cures and vaccines for said diseases. All breakthroughs arising therewith shall be put into public domain. Products arising from such breakthroughs shall be produced according to standards set by the WHA and its divisions, and distributed when and where necessary.

The WHA may also fund at the request of any nation, but never before a thorough audit of the health system, ensuring transparency & honesty.

Directs the World Health Authority to allocate sufficient funds toward reproductive education in those member states that are unable to meet the mandates of this resolution, even in a good faith effort, without supranational aid

Yet what you argue now is that material help should indeed be given for free, if the nation in question is unable to pay for it. That the help comes from the WA is irrelevant, as it ultimately is paid for (OOC: since WAGF tax "donations" probably aren't going to be more than the nation can afford) all the nations, which includes the ones - which are in the majority, I hope - that haven't been stupid enough to forego food scarcity prevention ages ago. Throwing money/equipment at nations that are so bad at managing themselves tends to be a non-ending drain.

"That is a painfully reductive analysis of global hunger. Some nations cannot afford food for reasons other than poor management. And, even if global hunger was a result of poor planning, millions of poor people should not be condemned to death because their government was irresponsible in the past."

[Sciongrad]

"Any other comments? I'm in no rush, but I also don't plan on leaving this out in the open for two years either."

[Araraukar]

"Any other comments? I'm in no rush, but I also don't plan on leaving this out in the open for two years either."

OOC: I'll have another look at this tomorrow. Yesterday's migraine and today's catching-up-because-of-yesterday's-migraine have made "properly awake braintime" rare for me recently.

[Araraukar]

OOC: As promised. Posting a new post rather than editing my previous, so the author knows new material has been added.

IC: Now then, let's see what this beastie has eaten. *pulls out the Proposal Scalpel*

Affirming that access to safe and nutritious food is a fundamental right of all people,

Fair enough, though Food Welfare Act already does that. (OOC: No, you won't get me to forget this just by repeating often enough that it somehow doesn't, just because it's an Encourages clause - all through this proposal you mandate optionality, which I don't see as any better.)

Recognizing that poverty and unsustainable agricultural practices are the leading causes of international hunger,

More like bad agricultural policy choices by the nations' governments. Also, are we talking about "hunger", aka famine, aka something you need humanitarian help for, or food scarcity?

Yes, I know I've complained of this before, and yes, I know it's just preamble, but I rather suspect you're using "international hunger" as a sensationalist attention-grabber.

Asserting that it is the responsibility of the international community to adopt appropriate measures designed to decrease agriculture input, increase agricultural output, and expand access to safe and nutritious food to all people,

Actually, wouldn't it be the responsibility of the nations suffering from food scarcity, and not the "international community", which you don't usually see tilling the land and spreading the manure. Unless we're using those words figuratively...

1. Mandates that member nations adopt sustainable agricultural policies whenever appropriate, including, but not limited to, regular crop rotation, polyculture techniques such as multicropping and intercropping, and responsible soil management techniques such as organic composting and cover crops;

You say that Food Welface Act is not solid enough with its "ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;" simply because that is an encouragement clause, yet you literally mandate optionality yourself. I don't see how that is 1) an improvement and 2) anything other than repeating what FWA already does.

2. Further mandates that member nations adopt measures designed to ensure a reliable supply of quality water for agricultural purposes whenever appropriate, including, but not limited to, reduced-volume irrigation systems, improved water storage, incentives for drought-resistant crops, incentives for salt-resistant crops, and tile drainage; farmland without access to a reliable source of water or without access to quality water (high salinity water, water contaminated by toxic substances, etc.) should be converted to other productive uses, including, but not limited to, wildlife habitats and drought resistant forages;

Same as above. Furthermore, you require that tech for all of that be given freely, but wouldn't that risk contradiction of Foreign Patent Recognition?

2. Further defines "patent", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an invention, including the right:

1. to use, manufacture, offer for sale and import or export the invention,
2. to sell or license any of these rights to others,

This proposal seems to be in danger of violating those rights. (OOC: I've never liked the patent resolution, but thought it worth mentioning here, since some of what you have listed, esp. the salt/drought-resistant varieties sound like things that would've been patented by their inventors, exactly because they're so useful.) You might want to restrict the tech sharing to public domain information. (OOC: Yes, yes, I know, some nation somewhere will have all of it in public domain, but just as likely some nation somewhere will have patented the whole lot.)

3. Requires that member nations adopt sustainable livestock management techniques to promote biological and economic diversity and complexity in farming systems whenever appropriate, including, but not limited to, holistic enterprise calendars of all agricultural operations, transhumance, land and herd production records, monitoring and recording feeding patterns to minimize feed costs; animals shall be carefully selected based on whether they are appropriate for a given farm's ecosystem and resources;

Again requiring optionality. The question arises, which instance or entity decides when something is appropriate? Because if it's the nation, then none of the nations on your ideology list would be any more obligated to do anything, than if this proposal didn't exist. If it's not the nation, then what is?

4. Establishes the World Assembly Committee for Sustainable Food Development (WACSFD) and charges it with the following:

Oh great, another committee. Why not use IFWO from Food Welfare Act, or WASP - which might make more sense - for this? Why create yet another committee?

a. Assisting member nations, especially low-income food-deficit nations, upon their request, with adopting and implementing sustainable land and water management techniques,

You repeatedly use this, so why not use it in preamble too, instead of "hunger"? And this yet again thwarts your mandating anything. If a nation is, as you seem to think many would be, "unwilling to implement the policies listed here", literally nothing in this proposal so far makes it so that they have to lift a finger.

b. Assisting member member nations, especially low income food-deficit nations, upon their request, with allocating appropriate resources to establish infrastructures conducive to sustainable agricultural practices,

So, wait, that would be the nation's own resources, yes? Not those bought with money from the WA General Fund, or, in other words, the money of the nations that weren't stupid enough to end up on the brink of famine intentionally?

c. Coordinating the transfer of relevant technology between member nations and helping member nations, especially low-income food-deficit nations in implementing such technologies if it is determined that they're locally suitable and effective in promoting sustainable agriculture,

"Helping in implementing"? Meaning exactly what? The gnomes of the committee doing the farming to show how it's done?

d. Conducting research into sustainable agricultural practices and technologies - the results of this research shall be made freely available to all nations and their inhabitants;

...unless subject to foreign patents in another WA nation.

5. Authorizes the WACSFD to liaise with the International Meteorological Organization in order to provide member nations with adequate warning prior to weather conditions which may disrupt sustainable agricultural practices, such as droughts and intensive rainfall, so as to allow them to make appropriate preparations.

(OOC: You might OOCly want to mention where that other (sub)committee is from, so people don't think you're creating 2.) Considering how the WA nations' cooperation with IMO itself is entirely voluntary according to how you read non-binding resolution language (encourages/urges), and that how they are allowed to withhold information from it during times of war, it's nothing short of a miracle for you to assure that IMO can provide any of that information.

All in all, I see a lot of mandated optionality no better than what GAR #52 already does, nothing that would literally force a food-deficient nation to do jack shit about anything, as well as potential contradiction with GAR #347.

(OOC: I have a feeling that this has a lot of typos hidden in it... I'll correct them when I notice them.)

[Sciongrad]

Fair enough, though Food Welfare Act already does that.

"The Food Welfare Act addresses food security, yes, but that does not at all mean that the issue of global food security is settled. You keep citing a non-binding clause that only concerns research. You have not demonstrated how that constitutes even the most basic overlap let alone significant duplication."

(OOC: No, you won't get me to forget this just by repeating often enough that it somehow doesn't, just because it's an Encourages clause - all through this proposal you mandate optionality, which I don't see as any better.)

OOC: I don't know how else to put this. You are citing a single, non-binding clause that deals specifically with promoting research of certain sustainable agriculture techniques. This resolution requires that nations implement them. And the first three clauses are not optional, they are qualified. If a nation is food-deficit because of low agricultural output and any given method listed in clause 1-3 is applicable then they are required by law to implement it. That is not optionality. You are conflating non-binding - which does not demand any action - with qualification. This proposal does require that nations implement the policies enumerated in clause 1-3 if it's necessary. GAR#52 does not do that. It does even encourage nations to adopt those policies, just that they research them.

More like bad agricultural policy choices by the nations' governments. Also, are we talking about "hunger", aka famine, aka something you need humanitarian help for, or food scarcity?

"I have no idea why you're so stuck up on this idea that the governments of low-income food deficit nations are at fault. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make. And I also don't know why you're making a distinction between food scarcity and famine. I doubt poor farmers care very much about what you call their inability to feed themselves."

Yes, I know I've complained of this before, and yes, I know it's just preamble, but I rather suspect you're using "international hunger" as a sensationalist attention-grabber.

"It is not. Food scarcity caused by unsustainable agriculture causes hunger. I know, that may be an astonishing and totally non-intuitive reality, but it's true."

Actually, wouldn't it be the responsibility of the nations suffering from food scarcity, and not the "international community", which you don't usually see tilling the land and spreading the manure. Unless we're using those words figuratively...

"If a member nation cannot afford to implement the policies listed or they're unwilling to, it is the responsibility of the international community to ensure that their citizens are well fed. If you want to be pedantic, yes, member nations will be the ones generally implementing the policies at a physical level, but I have no idea how that in any way diminishes the international community's responsibility to ensure all people have access to food."

You say that Food Welface Act is not solid enough with its "ENCOURAGES all nations to research more efficient irrigation and drainage technology to prevent crop shortages and wasteful water use; to research plant breeding techniques and soil fertilization techniques, as well as employ crop rotation, and weed, insect, and pest control;" simply because that is an encouragement clause, yet you literally mandate optionality yourself. I don't see how that is 1) an improvement and 2) anything other than repeating what FWA already does.

"Umm, are we reading the same clause? GAR#52 encourages member nations to research certain sustainable agricultural policies. It does not even broach the topic of policy adoption or implementation. This resolution legally requires member nations to adopt these policies and creates mechanisms that provide resources and assistance. You also seem to misunderstand what optionality means. Member nations that do not have low agricultural output due to unsustainable agriculture are not required to implement these policies in the same way countries without slaves were not required to abolish slavery by GAR#23. Member nations that do have low agricultural output due to unsustainable agriculture are legally obligated to implement the policies enumerated in clauses 1-3 where they're applicable. That is not optionality, that is reasonable qualification."

Same as above. Furthermore, you require that tech for all of that be given freely, but wouldn't that risk contradiction of Foreign Patent Recognition?

"That is not required anywhere in this resolution. The committee this resolution establishes is charged with coordinating the transfer of technology between member nations, but member nations are not obligated to participate, nor must that technology be exchanged for free. The only free technology guaranteed by this proposal is research conducted by the WACSFD."

Again requiring optionality. The question arises, which instance or entity decides when something is appropriate? Because if it's the nation, then none of the nations on your ideology list would be any more obligated to do anything, than if this proposal didn't exist. If it's not the nation, then what is?

"A member nation is required to follow resolutions in good faith. Simply because they may have some discretion over which situations are considered "appropriate" according to this resolution does not mean its provisions are optional. Member nations are legally obligated to comply with clauses 1-3 if they have low agricultural output due to unsustainable agricultural practices."

Oh great, another committee. Why not use IFWO from Food Welfare Act, or WASP - which might make more sense - for this? Why create yet another committee?

"Committees are not ipso facto bad things. But you're right here, I will use the IFWO."

You repeatedly use this, so why not use it in preamble too, instead of "hunger"? And this yet again thwarts your mandating anything. If a nation is, as you seem to think many would be, "unwilling to implement the policies listed here", literally nothing in this proposal so far makes it so that they have to lift a finger.

"Low-income food-deficit nations are the targets of this resolution, but only because hunger is more likely to exist in those nations. The purpose of this resolution is ultimately to reduce hunger."

So, wait, that would be the nation's own resources, yes? Not those bought with money from the WA General Fund, or, in other words, the money of the nations that weren't stupid enough to end up on the brink of famine intentionally?

"No, that clause is referring to money from the WA General Fund. As I said, combating hunger is the responsibility of the international community. I am, again, still disturbed at your suggestion that millions of poor people should be condemned to death because their government lacked the resources or technical knowledge to combat hunger."

"Helping in implementing"? Meaning exactly what? The gnomes of the committee doing the farming to show how it's done?

"The clause does exactly what it says it does. If a member nation lacks the resources, funds, or expertise to implement certain policies or infrastructure, the committee is charged with assisting them. Doing the farming for member nations is quite obviously not what the clause means, but I'm sure you know that."

...unless subject to foreign patents in another WA nation.

"I didn't realize World Assembly committees filed for patents. This clause explicitly and unambiguously refers to research conducted by the committee, not by member nations. If the research is in the public domain, then they can't simultaneously be subject to foreign patents."

Considering how the WA nations' cooperation with IMO itself is entirely voluntary according to how you read non-binding resolution language (encourages/urges), and that how they are allowed to withhold information from it during times of war, it's nothing short of a miracle for you to assure that IMO can provide any of that information.

"It's nothing short of a miracle to assume that the IMO can provide basic information regarding weather...?"

All in all, I see a lot of mandated optionality no better than what GAR #52 already does, nothing that would literally force a food-deficient nation to do jack shit about anything, as well as potential contradiction with GAR #347.

"Clauses 1-3 are not optional. Therefore, it cannot duplicate GAR#52. This proposal does not contradict GAR#347 because it does not require member nations to exchange their research for free."

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Bump!

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, wait, that would be the nation's own resources, yes? Not those bought with money from the WA General Fund, or, in other words, the money of the nations that weren't stupid enough to end up on the brink of famine intentionally?

"No, that clause is referring to money from the WA General Fund. As I said, combating hunger is the responsibility of the international community. I am, again, still disturbed at your suggestion that millions of poor people should be condemned to death because their government lacked the resources or technical knowledge to combat hunger."

Parsons: So instead, we are going to reward purposeful incompetence by transferring technology and resources to places which intentionally fail their constituencies. Under these situations, it will always be cheaper to develop agricultural areas by intentionally causing famine and having someone else foot the bill.

P: Secondarily, I don't see food production as a government-run organisation. In many countries, government resources and technical knowledge are irrelevant, since the government doesn't control food production. And when it does attempt to do so, it has failed miserably because it is not possible for a bureaucratic agency to be aware of the massively different contexts and ecological subtleties that a region possesses.

(OOC: Compulsory villagisation in Tanzania in the 1970s and collectivised farms in both the Soviet Union during the 1930s and China during the 1950s come to mind)

[Sciongrad]

Parsons: So instead, we are going to reward purposeful incompetence by transferring technology and resources to places which intentionally fail their constituencies. Under these situations, it will always be cheaper to develop agricultural areas by intentionally causing famine and having someone else foot the bill.

"Actually, instead, we're going to stop conflating incompetent governments with starving people and recognize that poor management is not a justification for letting millions of people die. I am willing to modify this resolution with a GAR#97-esque qualification that requires demonstrated financial inability to receive appropriate aid, but the assistance mechanism is non-negotiable.

As you've already noted, by the way, it would be in violation of extant international legislation to deliberately cause famine for political purposes, such as defrauding the World Assembly General Fund."

P: Secondarily, I don't see food production as a government-run organisation. In many countries, government resources and technical knowledge are irrelevant, since the government doesn't control food production. And when it does attempt to do so, it has failed miserably because it is not possible for a bureaucratic agency to be aware of the massively different contexts and ecological subtleties that a region possesses.

"This resolution does not necessarily assume food production is government run. It does assume that a government is willing to intervene whenever appropriate solely to ensure necessary reforms are implemented - theoretically, a member nation's government doesn't need to be directly involved in the policy implementation at all. Whether the farms are privately owned or run by the state is inconsequential as far as this resolution is concerned."

(OOC: Compulsory villagisation in Tanzania in the 1970s and collectivised farms in both the Soviet Union during the 1930s and China during the 1950s come to mind)

OOC: I know that requiring the implementation of sustainable agricultural techniques and forced collectivization à la Soviet Russia are not comparable and I also know that you know that.

[Tinfect]

And when it does attempt to do so, it has failed miserably because it is not possible for a bureaucratic agency to be aware of the massively different contexts and ecological subtleties that a region possesses.

"Of course, I could explain the utter falsehood of this statement, but I prefer to let the three-centuries of success in the Imperial Agricultural System speak for itself."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: So instead, we are going to reward purposeful incompetence by transferring technology and resources to places which intentionally fail their constituencies. Under these situations, it will always be cheaper to develop agricultural areas by intentionally causing famine and having someone else foot the bill.

"Actually, instead, we're going to stop conflating incompetent governments with starving people and recognize that poor management is not a justification for letting millions of people die. I am willing to modify this resolution with a GAR#97-esque qualification that requires demonstrated financial inability to receive appropriate aid, but the assistance mechanism is non-negotiable.

P: No, empirically, famine is caused not by shortfalls in food production, but the inability of actors to move food from where it is to where it is needed. That is entirely a management issue which is primarily focused on the incompetence of government, because government has the monopoly on force. A qualification like what you've said is something which is entirely necessary.

P: We would also say that poor management is not a justification for rewarding incompetence and malice. There should be a clause which attempts to guarantee that those requesting aid have not done so because they destroyed their own economies and obliterated their own food production schemes. What the policy does now is allows for costs that nations impose upon themselves not to be felt by those in power but rather shifted abroad.

As you've already noted, by the way, it would be in violation of extant international legislation to deliberately cause famine for political purposes, such as defrauding the World Assembly General Fund."

P: What is the relevant clause or resolution specifying this?

P: Secondarily, I don't see food production as a government-run organisation. In many countries, government resources and technical knowledge are irrelevant, since the government doesn't control food production. And when it does attempt to do so, it has failed miserably because it is not possible for a bureaucratic agency to be aware of the massively different contexts and ecological subtleties that a region possesses.

"This resolution does not necessarily assume food production is government run. It does assume that a government is willing to intervene whenever appropriate solely to ensure necessary reforms are implemented - theoretically, a member nation's government doesn't need to be directly involved in the policy implementation at all. Whether the farms are privately owned or run by the state is inconsequential as far as this resolution is concerned."

P: You stated that 'I am, again, still disturbed at your suggestion that millions of poor people should be condemned to death because their government lacked the resources or technical knowledge to combat hunger'. I am noting that not all resources and knowledge relevant to agriculture is present in the government and that states which have government that lack such resources and knowledge can still feed themselves.

(OOC: Compulsory villagisation in Tanzania in the 1970s and collectivised farms in both the Soviet Union during the 1930s and China during the 1950s come to mind)

OOC: I know that requiring the implementation of sustainable agricultural techniques and forced collectivization à la Soviet Russia are not comparable and I also know that you know that.

OOC: To quote James C Scott in Seeing Like a State,

The underlying premise of Nyerere's [Prime Minister of Tanganyika] agrarian policy, for all its rhetorical flourishes in the direction of traditional culture, was little different from that of colonial agrarian policy. That premise was that the practices of African cultivators and pastoralists were backward, unscientific, inefficient, and ecologically irresponsible. Only close supervision, training, and, if need be, coercion by specialists in scientific agriculture could bring them and their practices in line with a modern Tanzania. They were the problem to which the agricultural experts were the solution.

This policy failed spectacularly. It was done to increase crop yields, provide public services more efficiently, and help the state to more accurately distribute resources to where they were needed. It was done to develop the country and build a modern society. It failed miserably: the 90% of the population in those villages ended up producing 5% of the national agricultural yield.

[Sciongrad]

P: No, empirically, famine is caused not by shortfalls in food production, but the inability of actors to move food from where it is to where it is needed. That is entirely a management issue which is primarily focused on the incompetence of government, because government has the monopoly on force. A qualification like what you've said is something which is entirely necessary.

"As I've said before, poor management and infrastructure are issues that can lead to famine, but it is demonstrably false to insist that they are the only causes of famine. I'm sure I do not need to explain how low agricultural output leads to widespread hunger."

P: We would also say that poor management is not a justification for rewarding incompetence and malice. There should be a clause which attempts to guarantee that those requesting aid have not done so because they destroyed their own economies and obliterated their own food production schemes. What the policy does now is allows for costs that nations impose upon themselves not to be felt by those in power but rather shifted abroad.

"First of all, destroying one's entire economy to receive international agricultural assistance is not only myopic, but poor policy and will probably result in a net loss for member nations foolish enough to do so. But deliberately withholding food from citizens to create an artificial famine is a violation of GAR#52."

P: What is the relevant clause or resolution specifying this?

"You're excellency, you are the one that first mentioned it.

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people;

"Deliberately causing conditions that begin or exacerbate a famine is illegal.

P: You stated that 'I am, again, still disturbed at your suggestion that millions of poor people should be condemned to death because their government lacked the resources or technical knowledge to combat hunger'. I am noting that not all resources and knowledge relevant to agriculture is present in the government and that states which have government that lack such resources and knowledge can still feed themselves.

"I can say whatever I want when defending the proposal, but all that matters is what the proposal says, and it does not require member nations to be directly involved in implementation. They need to require implementation and distribute resources when necessary, but both of those requirements are compatible with a private agriculture industry."

-snip-

OOC: I don't disagree that Soviet collectivization and Tanzanian villagization were spectacular failures that caused widespread suffering, but they are not relevant to this proposal. Aside from the fact that they're policies regarding agriculture, they are not similar in any way to any of the policies espoused by this proposal. Adopting sharecropping when it is appropriate will not cause the deaths of millions of people, I assure you.

[Imperium Anglorum]

P: No, empirically, famine is caused not by shortfalls in food production, but the inability of actors to move food from where it is to where it is needed. That is entirely a management issue which is primarily focused on the incompetence of government, because government has the monopoly on force. A qualification like what you've said is something which is entirely necessary.

"As I've said before, poor management and infrastructure are issues that can lead to famine, but it is demonstrably false to insist that they are the only causes of famine. I'm sure I do not need to explain how low agricultural output leads to widespread hunger."

P: Low agricultural output, however, does not (1) necessitate hunger or (2) make famines happen. The only times famine has actually happened and massive numbers of people have died are when the government fails to take action. Low agricultural output only means people are hungry. Hunger and scarcity are not the same as famine.

P: We would also say that poor management is not a justification for rewarding incompetence and malice. There should be a clause which attempts to guarantee that those requesting aid have not done so because they destroyed their own economies and obliterated their own food production schemes. What the policy does now is allows for costs that nations impose upon themselves not to be felt by those in power but rather shifted abroad.

"First of all, destroying one's entire economy to receive international agricultural assistance is not only myopic, but poor policy and will probably result in a net loss for member nations foolish enough to do so. But deliberately withholding food from citizens to create an artificial famine is a violation of GAR#52."

P: What is the relevant clause or resolution specifying this?

"You're excellency, you are the one that first mentioned it.

OUTLAWS governmental actions such as state-based food hoarding and unfair food distribution practices which deliberately produce famines and starvation; also outlaws such actions taken during crises such as famines, natural disasters, and refugee crises that are detrimental to the health and welfare of the people;

"Deliberately causing conditions that begin or exacerbate a famine is illegal.

P: No, government actions which deliberately produce famines are illegal. Government actions which also happen to produce famines are not. Otherwise, agricultural collectivisation would basically be impossible. Secondarily, states which would make that cost-benefit analysis are also states that would care about their people. Not all states care about their people. If we want to have more efficient and effective states, then we must also have governments actually be accountable to their people by consequences accruing if they mismanage the state. Shifting that burden to the international community leads to ineffective governance and dependance on foreign aid because there is no reason to make the state more efficient.

(OOC: Colonialism comes to mind when I think about states which don't care about their populaces, Irish Potato Famine and Indian Famine? Both were also caused by the British not doing anything about it. They could have shipped food, they didn't. Not the proudest moment of the Empire.)

OOC: I don't disagree that Soviet collectivization and Tanzanian villagization were spectacular failures that caused widespread suffering, but they are not relevant to this proposal. Aside from the fact that they're policies regarding agriculture, they are not similar in any way to any of the policies espoused by this proposal. Adopting sharecropping when it is appropriate will not cause the deaths of millions of people, I assure you.

OOC: Forcing people to do so certainly will. Again, Scott, "if people find the new arrangement, however efficient in principle, to be hostile to their dignity, their plans, and their tastes, they can make it an inefficient arrangement".

[Sciongrad]

P: Low agricultural output, however, does not (1) necessitate hunger or (2) make famines happen. The only times famine has actually happened and massive numbers of people have died are when the government fails to take action. Low agricultural output only means people are hungry. Hunger and scarcity are not the same as famine.

"This argument is approaching purposeless pedantry. Low agricultural output creates hunger. Compounded with other factors, like government inaction, low agricultural output will cause famine. Whether or not it can cause 'famine' by itself is irrelevant because firstly, low agricultural output is a cause of famine and secondly, whether or not 'famine' occurs does not change the fact that many poor farmers will die of hunger."

P: No, government actions which deliberately produce famines are illegal. Government actions which also happen to produce famines are not. Otherwise, agricultural collectivisation would basically be impossible. Secondarily, states which would make that cost-benefit analysis are also states that would care about their people. Not all states care about their people. If we want to have more efficient and effective states, then we must also have governments actually be accountable to their people by consequences accruing if they mismanage the state. Shifting that burden to the international community leads to ineffective governance and dependance on foreign aid because there is no reason to make the state more efficient.

"If a member nation's goal in adopting a certain policy is not to deliberately cause hunger, then I do not believe it is appropriate to punish their people. If the government of Imperium Anglorum believes that member nations should adopt the most efficient food distribution policies, write a resolution on it. Condemning millions of people to death because of governmental mismanagement is not a compelling argument against providing aid to low-income food-deficient nations, especially if we are in agreement that hunger is an issue of international concern."

(OOC: Colonialism comes to mind when I think about states which don't care about their populaces, Irish Potato Famine and Indian Famine? Both were also caused by the British not doing anything about it. They could have shipped food, they didn't. Not the proudest moment of the Empire.)

OOC: So your solution in this situation is, rather than requiring that British ensure sustainable agriculture techniques are adopted in Ireland to prevent a similar famine in the future, to let the millions of poor Irish die of hunger? By suggesting that aid be distributed only to nations with responsible governments, you are dehumanizing the devastating impact of hunger on actual people.

OOC: Forcing people to do so certainly will. Again, Scott, "if people find the new arrangement, however efficient in principle, to be hostile to their dignity, their plans, and their tastes, they can make it an inefficient arrangement".

OOC: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of that argument as it relates specifically to sustainable agriculture. That argument is not an appropriate analogy because the scope of change caused by collectivization or villagization and the scope of change caused by adopting new irrigation techniques are wildly different.

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: Colonialism comes to mind when I think about states which don't care about their populaces, Irish Potato Famine and Indian Famine? Both were also caused by the British not doing anything about it. They could have shipped food, they didn't. Not the proudest moment of the Empire.)

OOC:
re the Irish potato famine: What makes you so sure that Britain actually had that much food available to ship, considering the population ratio (Ireland had about 20-25% of the UK's total population before the famine)? Or, if you're presuming that it could have been purchased elsewhere and shipped in, then where was there an adequate stock on the market? And how was the UK's government to pay for this, bearing in mind the limits on taxation and government borrowing that applied at the time and couldn't quickly have been altered? Even if they'd reintroduced income tax for this purpose, they'd then have had to arrange to assess the taxpayers and sort out a collection system...
Re the Indian famine: You mean the one during WW2, yes? A major part of the problem was that Bengal (where the worst effects applied) had previously overcome any shortages by imported rice from Burma, which Japanese occupation of the latter country obviously made impossible at that time. Where else would you suggest the extra food should have been obtained, bearing in mind the effects of the war on shipping availability & risks of sinking due to enemy submarines, agricultural manpower in various countries, Imperial balance of trade, and so on?

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: re the Irish potato famine: What makes you so sure that Britain actually had that much food available to ship, considering the population ratio (Ireland had about 20-25% of the UK's total population before the famine)? Or, if you're presuming that it could have been purchased elsewhere and shipped in, then where was there an adequate stock on the market? And how was the UK's government to pay for this, bearing in mind the limits on taxation and government borrowing that applied at the time and couldn't quickly have been altered? Even if they'd reintroduced income tax for this purpose, they'd then have had to arrange to assess ^{IA: Heh, heh, 17 GA reference.} the taxpayers and sort out a collection system...

Partly because they did, but then they stopped. From the Britannica:

The British government’s efforts to relieve the famine were inadequate. Although Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel continued to allow the export of grain from Ireland to Great Britain, he did what he could to provide relief in 1845 and early 1846. He authorized the import of corn (maize) from the United States, which helped avert some starvation. Under the Liberal (Whig) cabinet of Lord John Russell, which assumed power in June 1846, the emphasis shifted to reliance on Irish resources and the free market, which made disaster inevitable.

Much of the financial burden of providing for the starving Irish peasantry was thrown upon the Irish landowners themselves (through local poor relief) and British absentee landowners. Because the peasantry was unable to pay its rents, however, the landlords soon ran out of funds with which to support them, and the result was that hundreds of thousands of Irish tenant farmers and labourers were evicted during the years of the crisis. Under the terms of the harsh 1834 British Poor Law, enacted in 1838 in Ireland, the “able-bodied” indigent were sent to workhouses rather than being given famine relief per se. British assistance was limited to loans, helping to fund soup kitchens, and providing employment on road building and other public works. The Irish disliked the imported cornmeal, and reliance on it led to nutritional deficiencies. Despite those shortcomings, by August 1847 as many as three million people were receiving rations at soup kitchens. All in all, the British government spent about £8 million on relief, and some private relief funds were raised as well. The impoverished Irish peasantry, lacking the money to purchase the foods their farms produced, continued throughout the famine to export grain, meat, and other high-quality foods to Britain. The government’s grudging and ineffective measures to relieve the famine’s distress intensified the resentment of British rule among the Irish people. Similarly damaging was the attitude among many British intellectuals that the crisis was a predictable and not-unwelcome corrective to high birth rates in the preceding decades and perceived flaws, in their opinion, in the Irish national character. (Source)

Re the Indian famine: You mean the one during WW2, yes? A major part of the problem was that Bengal (where the worst effects applied) had previously overcome any shortages by imported rice from Burma, which Japanese occupation of the latter country obviously made impossible at that time. Where else would you suggest the extra food should have been obtained, bearing in mind the effects of the war on shipping availability & risks of sinking due to enemy submarines, agricultural manpower in various countries, Imperial balance of trade, and so on?

No, the one in 1876. But let's talk about the 1943 Bengali famine. Again, from the Britannica:

A good example of an entitlement-based famine without a commensurate shortfall in food production is the Bengal famine of 1943, which happens to be one of the most intensively studied famines. Although food production did fall slightly in 1943 compared with previous years, it was still 13 percent higher than in 1941, when there was no famine. One phenomenon that did distinguish the year 1943 was inflation, a common consequence of war. Yet, amid rising commodity prices, the wages paid to agricultural labourers stagnated. Between 1939 and 1943, food grain prices rose by more than 300 percent, slightly outstripping the rate of inflation, whereas the wages of agricultural labourers rose by only 30 percent. Agricultural labourers, as a class, were badly hit, which resulted in many deaths. Yet, even as rural Bengal was being ravaged by famine, the West Bengal capital city, Calcutta (now Kolkata), was hardly affected. Research has shown that famine-related deaths in Calcutta occurred primarily among migrants who had come from the villages in search of food and alms. (Source)

[Sciongrad]

-snip-

The Bengali famine is an interesting example of a famine that began without a decline in agricultural output, but does not in anyway suggest that all, or even most, famines are caused exclusively by failures of infrastructure or transfer. Desertification in East Africa has caused a tremendous decline in food production and vegetation in general. The result is famine. I am not nor have I ever suggested that low agricultural output is the only cause of famine, but it is a cause of famine.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"If a member nation's goal in adopting a certain policy is not to deliberately cause hunger, then I do not believe it is appropriate to punish their people. If the government of Imperium Anglorum believes that member nations should adopt the most efficient food distribution policies, write a resolution on it. Condemning millions of people to death because of governmental mismanagement is not a compelling argument against providing aid to low-income food-deficient nations, especially if we are in agreement that hunger is an issue of international concern."

OOC: Why don't you just drop the 'we need to help the poor' and go for that instead?

[Araraukar]

OOC: To quote James C Scott in Seeing Like a State,

From the Britannica:

Again, from the Britannica:

OOC: Would you stop doing that? Put the damn arguments in your own words, or at least quote them like normal text with link to source material. What you're doing now (and not just on this thread) is starting to get annoying.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: To quote James C Scott in Seeing Like a State,

From the Britannica:

Again, from the Britannica:

OOC: Would you stop doing that? Put the damn arguments in your own words, or at least quote them like normal text with link to source material. What you're doing now (and not just on this thread) is starting to get annoying.

Block text looks better than a quote that is indented but not actually indented. Doing so also allows for source links which are always given (except for Scott, since that comes from a scan of the book).

[Araraukar]

Block text looks better than a quote that is indented but not actually indented.

OOC: That's not the point. Direct RL quotes like that are for NSG, not GA debates.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Block text looks better than a quote that is indented but not actually indented.

OOC: That's not the point. Direct RL quotes like that are for NSG, not GA debates.

All of those are responses to responses against the original statement.

[Sciongrad]

Block text looks better than a quote that is indented but not actually indented.

OOC: That's not the point. Direct RL quotes like that are for NSG, not GA debates.

OOC: I disagree. The GA is a mixed OOC/IC forum because it would be impossible to determine the effectiveness of certain policies without pointing to real world examples. As long as the RL source is supplementary and not an argument in its own right, I think citing authors, real world events, and even encyclopedias is fine.

[Imperium Anglorum]

P: Low agricultural output, however, does not (1) necessitate hunger or (2) make famines happen. The only times famine has actually happened and massive numbers of people have died are when the government fails to take action. Low agricultural output only means people are hungry. Hunger and scarcity are not the same as famine.

"This argument is approaching purposeless pedantry. Low agricultural output creates hunger. Compounded with other factors, like government inaction, low agricultural output will cause famine. Whether or not it can cause 'famine' by itself is irrelevant because firstly, low agricultural output is a cause of famine and secondly, whether or not 'famine' occurs does not change the fact that many poor farmers will die of hunger."

P: Okay then. What is the line between 'you don't need aid' and 'you need aid'? One dead farmer? Two dead farmers? Three? A thousand? What is the line of a famine?

(OOC: Colonialism comes to mind when I think about states which don't care about their populaces, Irish Potato Famine and Indian Famine? Both were also caused by the British not doing anything about it. They could have shipped food, they didn't. Not the proudest moment of the Empire.)

OOC: So your solution in this situation is, rather than requiring that British ensure sustainable agriculture techniques are adopted in Ireland to prevent a similar famine in the future, to let the millions of poor Irish die of hunger? By suggesting that aid be distributed only to nations with responsible governments, you are dehumanizing the devastating impact of hunger on actual people.

OOC: As if the British would allow them to keep the food if they had a famine anyway! At the height of the potato famine, Ireland was exporting food to England. They were shipping it abroad as millions starved. The only long term solution to famine is a long term solution to management. The only way to solve management (unless you, as a powerful nation, want to invade everything, be everywhere, and fight colonial insurgencies forever) is to make governments accountable to their people. Accountability solves famine.

OOC: Forcing people to do so certainly will. Again, Scott, "if people find the new arrangement, however efficient in principle, to be hostile to their dignity, their plans, and their tastes, they can make it an inefficient arrangement".

OOC: I disagree fundamentally with the premise of that argument as it relates specifically to sustainable agriculture. That argument is not an appropriate analogy because the scope of change caused by collectivization or villagization and the scope of change caused by adopting new irrigation techniques are wildly different.

OOC: Do you want to force them to adopt your scientific irrigation techniques?

P: We will oppose this proposal if its primary impetus is to avert famine. We will support this proposal if its primary impetus is to increase sustainability and reduce the impact of farming on the environment.

[Bears Armed]

From the Britannica:

Much of the financial burden of providing for the starving Irish peasantry was thrown upon the Irish landowners themselves (through local poor relief) and British absentee landowners. Because the peasantry was unable to pay its rents, however, the landlords soon ran out of funds with which to support them, and the result was that hundreds of thousands of Irish tenant farmers and labourers were evicted during the years of the crisis. Under the terms of the harsh 1834 British Poor Law, enacted in 1838 in Ireland, the “able-bodied” indigent were sent to workhouses rather than being given famine relief per se.

OOC: So, they were treated in the same way that famine victims anywhere else in the UK -- in southern England, for example, if a famine had struck there -- would, under the terms of the Poor Law, have been treated. How is treating the Irish peasantry in the same way that they'd have treated the English peasantry evidence for your claim of "not caring about the colonies"? Evidence for the upper classes not caring much about the peasantry [on either side of the Irish Sea], maybeso yes, but that's a different problem...

Again from the Britannica:

A good example of an entitlement-based famine without a commensurate shortfall in food production is the Bengal famine of 1943, which happens to be one of the most intensively studied famines. Although food production did fall slightly in 1943 compared with previous years, it was still 13 percent higher than in 1941, when there was no famine. One phenomenon that did distinguish the year 1943 was inflation, a common consequence of war. Yet, amid rising commodity prices, the wages paid to agricultural labourers stagnated. Between 1939 and 1943, food grain prices rose by more than 300 percent, slightly outstripping the rate of inflation, whereas the wages of agricultural labourers rose by only 30 percent. Agricultural labourers, as a class, were badly hit, which resulted in many deaths. Yet, even as rural Bengal was being ravaged by famine, the West Bengal capital city, Calcutta (now Kolkata), was hardly affected. Research has shown that famine-related deaths in Calcutta occurred primarily among migrants who had come from the villages in search of food and alms.

OOC: So the harvest was slightly larger in 1943 than it had been in non-faminous 1943? Okay, but in 1941 -- unlike 1943 -- it was possible to import additional rice from Burma, because the Japanese invasion of the latter country didn't start until December of year... and the rest of the article that you quote seems to suggest that local landowners deserve a share of the blame for the deaths, because they held labourers' wage increases down to a much lower rate than inflation, instead of the British getting blamed for everything.